We are interested in the simulating tuna processing and the supplying of markets both local to the EPO and global. We are gathering two types of data here:
For the model, tariff data will be inputted directly as it represents costs and constraints that the supply chain faces. Trade data will also be directly inputted when it represents final consumption (sinks) or imports from abroad (sources) but will otherwise be used as a target for the model to replicate.
The EPO tuna supply chain can fundamentally be split into 3 parts:
The Ecuador cluster imports raw material then process it for export. The imports appear to be chiefly from neighbouring countries as well as Spanish and Korean flagged vessels. Exports are concentrated in Europe but also to other American countries.
The Mexico cluster exports much less and in fact supplements some of its tuna needs (both raw and processed) from Asia.
The Central America cluster also process and exports, but has a much larger proportion of raw material being directly exported to Europe.
Originally, I settled on using UN Comtrade data to gauge the flow of imports and exports in each EPO country and final markets. The problem with this data-set is that it is extremely inconsistent.
For example, in its import section for frozen raw skipjack (HS code 030343), Ecuador is listed as importing 86t from Spain, but Spain is listed as exporting to Ecuador 28,000t of raw skipjack. That’s a 3 orders of magnitude discrepancy. Even more blatantly, S. Korea claims to export 4,500t of raw skipjack to Ecuador but Ecuador does not list any import from Korea.
These discrepancies are usually “solved” by using some form of statistical reconciliation technique where the more a country’s reports fail to match their partners the less weighted their numbers become. The only “open” data-set that does this that I am familiar with is BACI.
This means that, the BACI data-set provides some weighted averages based on “believability” for each country. It claims that Spain exports to Ecuador 19,600t of raw skipjack, while Korea exports 4,600t. We will use these numbers for now.
If we focus here on the five countries with the most cannery capacity in 2017 (Ecuador, Mexico, Colombia, Costa Rica and Venezuela) we see that:
It is a bit puzzling that some countries would both be importers and exporters of raw material, but most of it can be explained by looking at its destinations. In particular:
My hypotheses mostly is as follows:
Unfortunately both loins and canned tuna are included in the same HS code, which means that BACI aggregate their trade.
In general, Ecuador is by far the largest exporter, while most other countries import more than they export.
Most trade data is provided at the HS code level, which means that both loins and canned products are aggregated into a single number.
You can however get an idea of the split by looking at traded values per tariff line on the WTO data-base.
For example, the EU has 3 tariff lines specific to loins which together account for 42% of the trade (in $) between Ecuador and the EU. For the US however, Ecuador seems to be exporting almost only canned products (tariff line 16041430).
While the WTO does not provide the information by weight, this could in principle be estimated by looking at the difference in price between loins and canned product (which is available intermittently at GLOBEFISH).
No fancy pictures here because the data is all into pdf files which will require a bit to digitize.
WTO has good data on tariffs per type of item. If you just look at average tariff applied per item, you get:
| Reporter | Fish preparation | Fresh Yellowfin | Fresh Skipjack | Fresh Bigeye | Fresh offals | Frozen Yellowfin | Frozen Skipjack | Frozen Bigeye | Frozen offals | Frozen fillets |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Argentina | 16.0 | 10 | 10 | 10 | NA | 10 | 10 | 10 | NA | 10 |
| Bolivia, Plurinational State of | 18.3 | 20 | 20 | 20 | 13.3 | 20 | 20 | 20 | 15.0 | 15 |
| Brazil | 16.0 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10.0 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10.0 | 10 |
| Colombia | 15.0 | 15 | 15 | 15 | 15.0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 15.0 | 15 |
| Costa Rica | 14.0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 6.0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 7.7 | 14 |
| Ecuador | 30.0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | NA | 0 | 0 | 0 | NA | 30 |
| El Salvador | 15.0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 8.3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 8.3 | 15 |
| European Union | 24.1 | 11 | 11 | 11 | 10.0 | 11 | 11 | 11 | 10.0 | 18 |
| Nicaragua | 15.0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 8.3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 8.3 | 15 |
| Panama | 0.0 | 15 | 15 | 15 | 6.7 | 15 | 15 | 15 | 9.5 | 15 |
| Paraguay | 16.0 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10.0 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10.0 | 10 |
| Peru | 0.0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 |
| United States of America | 11.7 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 |
| Uruguay | 16.0 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10.0 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10.0 | 10 |
Which follows generaly the principle of taxing lightly imports (particularly frozen) but taxing final products (fish preparation). However this is imprecise for two reasons:
So to be more precise, for the European Union you get:
03034310)Or in other words, the only EPO processors that faces full (24%) tariffs on exports to the EU are Mexico and Venezuela. Both for loins and canned products (but still no tariffs on raw frozen products).
For the United States you get:
There are no preferential trade agreements with either Brazil or Argentina.
Chile offers a preferential agreement with Ecuador (no tariffs) while charges others 6%.